Read the macro pool or one macro

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the read-only nature plus a detailed picture of returned data (running line is null when idle, line fields, name null meaning default). It omits error/not-found behavior and any permission or rate-limit context, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the key constraint ('Read-only.') and organizes the two modes clearly in sequence. The long parenthetical enumerating line fields is dense but each item is informative; only the reference-type list ('Sequence, Cue, Macro, Group, Preset, MAtricks, Page, Master, ...') edges toward excess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and 5 parameters at 20% coverage, the description does the heavy lifting by outlining both the pool listing fields and the full per-line field set. Remaining gaps are minor: default for limit, data_pool interaction (deferred to schema), and behavior when the macro does not exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only data_pool is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains the offset/limit default of 100, the meaning of the optional 'macro' selector, and the effect of check_references including the object types checked. It still leaves limit/offset units and valid macro number ranges unstated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('macro pool or one macro') and cleanly splits the two operating modes by whether the 'macro' parameter is supplied. It does not name the sibling tools that write or run macros (gma3_store_macro, gma3_edit_macro_line, gma3_run_macro), so differentiation is implicit via 'Read-only' rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The two modes imply usage (omit 'macro' for the pool, supply it for one macro's detail), which is useful conditional guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as gma3_store_macro or gma3_run_macro for the write/execute cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.